Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 6, 2022

Amable v. The New School

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:20-cv-03811
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Amable v. The New School, Judge Karas granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Who this affects

Elizabeth Amable, Kaitlyn Amable, and The New School; the complaint was dismissed with prejudice and the case was closed.

What happened

Elizabeth Amable and Kaitlyn Amable sued The New School individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The supplied judgment does not state the claims or the facts underlying the lawsuit.

The court stated that, for the reasons in its May 6, 2022 Opinion and Order, it granted The New School’s motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court cited decisions concerning repeated attempts to amend or pursue a case, but the supplied judgment does not explain the specific reasoning.

Judge Kenneth Karas’s court closed the case after entering judgment on May 6, 2022. The judgment does not identify the type of motion or separately describe the claims’ legal merits.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Amable v. The New School · No. 7:20-cv-03811
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
May 6, 2022

What the judgment says

Elizabeth Amable and Kaitlyn Amable brought the case against The New School individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The supplied text does not identify the claims, the factual allegations, or the arguments made by either side.

Ruling

The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s Opinion and Order dated May 6, 2022, the defendant’s motion was granted and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice ends the complaint and bars refiling the same claims. The judgment also states that the case is closed.

The judgment cites decisions discussing a plaintiff’s lack of entitlement to a further attempt after earlier unsuccessful efforts. Those citations do not, by themselves, explain the specific basis for the ruling in this case. The supplied text does not state whether the motion was a motion to dismiss, identify the legal standard applied, or show that the court decided the underlying claims on their merits.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.